It is now impossible to recruit against any ACC team in Iba. The disparity gap has widened to the point that they can pursue 5 stars without competition so they have the money to own any prospect they choose. We have one ACC team with 11 5 stars on there roster now.
I'm not saying performance doesn't deserve reward but if the reward is to be made invincible then the rest of us are going to give up.

How about increasing the value of PT and starting promises? Or eliminating the concept of the back up message. If Yale wants to contact a 5 star, so be it. The A+ prestige impact could be narrowed and be contingent on how many 4 and 5 stars a team already signed. Doesn't mean you couldn't sign 5 of them, it would just be harder to do. Would make the big teams more selective.

Maybe a cap on maximum amount of tournament dollars a conference can receive. And, no offense intended, it's time to start firing some folks who haven't sniffed a winning season in forever and are still B prestiges instead of sending them to the PI with11-16 records.

You must have noticed that the coach outflow back to DII or out of the game is exceeding the inflow. The recruiting issues and job access have created unbeatable teams and an exclusive club of teams that can win more than one NT game.

I wouldn't mind, honestly, the pt being only five hundred or better as well as the nt. it might distribute a few more dollars out of the big six and a few more dollars into the smaller conferences and, perhaps, stop saving the careers of people in big six conferences who perhaps should be fired but aren't because of the postseason appearance. It's would seem to be a relatively low risk tweak ...

Looking at that world, just acc, there are 17 pt appearances by losing records over that period. Probably is quite a bit more by the time you add all of the other big six. At the very least would probably make it easier for some other teams to start ratcheting up their prestige with a pt appearance and earn a little cash to boot.

Risk/reward. The Big 6 school coaches should be held to a significantly higher standard to hold onto there jobs if they are going to receive so many benefits.
Also, it should be harder for them to reach down and recruit lower rated players. In real life, would a 1 star recruit choose to ride the bench for 4 years at Duke or play regularly at East Carolina?

Also, why would a 5 star player 100 miles from my campus give me a backup message when I am a Big East Conference team? And go undecided for 3 sessions. I might not get him but to be barred from him is ridiculous.

1) I've always been a big proponent of increasing the value of starts and minutes. Along with that, crush the reputation of anyone that doesn't honor the promises and also make it so they can't do it again.

2) Big proponent in the increasing the firings. If you make the PIT every once in a while you can stay in your job forever. That's nuts. I'd like to see much more jobflow.

3) The changes (6 months ago?) did shrink the gap IMO with more EE going from the Big 6. Making the conference strength mean less towards your own prestige, had very minimal effect.

Posted by stinenavy on 1/7/2013 9:26:00 AM (view original):1) I've always been a big proponent of increasing the value of starts and minutes. Along with that, crush the reputation of anyone that doesn't honor the promises and also make it so they can't do it again.

2) Big proponent in the increasing the firings. If you make the PIT every once in a while you can stay in your job forever. That's nuts. I'd like to see much more jobflow.

3) The changes (6 months ago?) did shrink the gap IMO with more EE going from the Big 6. Making the conference strength mean less towards your own prestige, had very minimal effect.

Ergo would you not think that making the pt be winning record only would reduce the number of those teams rescued from firing by it?

I think the winning record only requirement is actually a bad thing even for the NT.

A team which schedules difficult and beatable opponents and loses a few more times shouldn't be eliminated from the tournament when a team with a higher RPI that is slightly above .500 gets in with an easier schedule. I know this doesn't happen often but it does happen.

Posted by stinenavy on 1/7/2013 9:26:00 AM (view original):1) I've always been a big proponent of increasing the value of starts and minutes. Along with that, crush the reputation of anyone that doesn't honor the promises and also make it so they can't do it again.

2) Big proponent in the increasing the firings. If you make the PIT every once in a while you can stay in your job forever. That's nuts. I'd like to see much more jobflow.

3) The changes (6 months ago?) did shrink the gap IMO with more EE going from the Big 6. Making the conference strength mean less towards your own prestige, had very minimal effect.

Ergo would you not think that making the pt be winning record only would reduce the number of those teams rescued from firing by it?

I'm in agreement with Stine here. The firing system in general is broken and appears to have been for a long time. There are such a miniscule number of firings anyway that making a team have a winning record to make the PIT probably would have virtually no effect on firings as a whole. It might be nice in that it could put more mid-major and lower D1 schools into the PIT, thus giving them a few extra recruiting dollars (emphasis on a few), but I don't think it would even make a scratch on the firing problem.

Posted by stinenavy on 1/7/2013 9:26:00 AM (view original):1) I've always been a big proponent of increasing the value of starts and minutes. Along with that, crush the reputation of anyone that doesn't honor the promises and also make it so they can't do it again.

2) Big proponent in the increasing the firings. If you make the PIT every once in a while you can stay in your job forever. That's nuts. I'd like to see much more jobflow.

3) The changes (6 months ago?) did shrink the gap IMO with more EE going from the Big 6. Making the conference strength mean less towards your own prestige, had very minimal effect.

Ergo would you not think that making the pt be winning record only would reduce the number of those teams rescued from firing by it?

I'm in agreement with Stine here. The firing system in general is broken and appears to have been for a long time. There are such a miniscule number of firings anyway that making a team have a winning record to make the PIT probably would have virtually no effect on firings as a whole. It might be nice in that it could put more mid-major and lower D1 schools into the PIT, thus giving them a few extra recruiting dollars (emphasis on a few), but I don't think it would even make a scratch on the firing problem.

Also, probably true, but the positive of it would be that it would be a relatively easy tweak.

My issue with playing time and starts, is they will only be accepted if you are in the lead already. So if I am trailing, I can't use them to close the gap, only to widen it in a battle I'm already winning.

promised minutes, yeah, you have to be ahead (i think, maybe, im not sure - its been a long time since i had them rejected, i think as a coach you eventually get to the point you only fight battles you expect to win, so i cant think back to a losing battle where i tried). but with promised starts, dont you just have to be close? you can get them taken without even being considered. and i thought if you were not considered, and someone else was, it would get rejected - but soon as you were considered, it was ok?

anyway, back to the real point - is d1 still hemorrhaging coaches? i know we lost about a third of all d1 coaches shortly after seble put out the new engine, because of the new improved recruit generation. but i thought it was decently stable since. i really need to run those damn dynasty lists, so i can just look at the population data... uhg. but anyway, i totally agree that d1 recruiting needs to change. any time you lose a full third of the user base and there is consensus on why, i think its more than obvious a change needs to be made. im for changing promises to be worth more, but more importantly, im for redoing recruit generation to get it to a more reasonable state...